|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
 Posted - Aug 08 2010 : 1:18:34 PM
|
An image viewed in a mirror, does not affect the mirror. A crystal ball placed on a red cloth is not affected by the color.
The impure mind similarly does not affect the primordial purity of That.
Do not be confused by self-inquiry of Ramana Maharishi or other modern nonduality teachings. |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Aug 08 2010 4:30:36 PM |
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Aug 08 2010 : 3:08:15 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
An image viewed in a mirror, does not affect the mirror. A crystal ball placed on a red cloth is not affected by the color.
The impure mind similarly does not affect the primordial purity of That.
Do not be confused by self-inquiry of Ramana Maharishi or other modern nonduality teachings.
I'm fairly familiar w/Ramana's teachings ... along with other non-duality teachings, ancient and modern, and can also compare these teachings with non-fluctuating experience of wholeness.
How do you see Ramana's teachings, and other non-duality teachings as confusing, with respect to what you have written above?
I don't disagree with what you've written ... it's just that, as far as I know, all non-dual philosophy has, as a primary aspect of its teachings, some form of teaching and illustration which highlights what you've written above.
Namely that true nature consists of the changeless, the whole (aka non-dual reality), which is ever unaffected by the vacillations of consciousness and manifestation, which are but momentary display -- whereas the pure awareness we actually are, is ever-free from these vacillations -- hence the illustrations that you just posted, and others like them.
I've recently re-read Be As You Are by Ramana Maharshi (or, rather, compiled around spoken instruction of his), and I Am That by Nisargadatta Maharaj ... and they both emphasize the changelessness of awareness/self/true nature/ whatever else we might call it, and the fact that it is not affected by mind, or anything else ..... throughout both books.
And so, again:
Where do you see potential confusion between the illustrations you've posted above, and the teachings of Ramana Maharshi, and other modern enlightened advaita teachers?
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
PS- The changelessness of true nature is reality; this is my experience - I agree with that aspect 100% ... I'm just curious as to where/why/how you see any potential confusion?
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Aug 08 2010 3:10:30 PM |
 |
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Aug 08 2010 : 4:10:10 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Where do you see potential confusion between the illustrations you've posted above, and the teachings of Ramana Maharshi, and other modern enlightened advaita teachers?
Do you know how many posts on this forum alone are about understanding self-inquiry?
To call Ramana Maharishi confusing is not a radical position
The whole notion of self-inquiry is not necessary nor conducive to understanding nonduality. Self-inquiry is simply a weak basic Madhyamaka analysis. |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Aug 08 2010 4:49:13 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Aug 08 2010 : 7:53:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Where do you see potential confusion between the illustrations you've posted above, and the teachings of Ramana Maharshi, and other modern enlightened advaita teachers?
Do you know how many posts on this forum alone are about understanding self-inquiry?
Yes, I've seen a few.
Trying to understand self-inquiry with thinking mind is obviously an unworkable endeavor, but people still try.
quote:
To call Ramana Maharishi confusing is not a radical position
Maybe not; I literally experience him as crystal-clear now, but that certainly wasn't always the case.
quote:
The whole notion of self-inquiry is not necessary nor conducive to understanding nonduality.
Well, true -- but the whole notion of understanding is equally problematic.
The reality of non-duality cannot be understood, nor experienced - because both of these conditions imply duality.
We can only be the wholeness we actually are.
Non-duality as a philosophy can't help but be affected by duality, because philosophy and language are both manifestations of, and within, duality.
Only the pure being, the pure changeless awareness (clarity, wholeness, etc.) stands alone, unaffected -- "I am taintless, immovable, completely pure, I am Shiva" as Shankara, the founder of Advaita Vedanta wrote, speaking as Shiva, the wholeness.
And I recall that you don't care for English translations; I have the Sanskrit for the quote above, if you want to see it (it's pretty simple; I can vouch for and verify the translation myself).
quote:
Self-inquiry is simply a weak basic Madhyamaka analysis.
What's weak about it?
Or basic?
What do the more advanced tools or approaches of Madhyamaka offer that self-inquiry doesn't?
Why does it always come back to touting Buddhism, within a post or two, with you, regardless of the topic?
That's a sincere question, by the way; I'm genuinely interested. Do you feel you have verified Buddhism experientially to that extent? If so, how can you feel that Buddhism is so superior? (A high-level of experiential verification of non-duality usually creates open-mindedness regarding effective systems, in my experience). If you haven't experientially verified the non-dual teachings of (presumably) Madhyamaka, why are you so (seemingly) closed off to anything but Buddhism?
I just don't get it -- and am interested, if you care to discuss.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Aug 08 2010 : 10:47:38 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Non-duality as a philosophy can't help but be affected by duality, because philosophy and language are both manifestations of, and within, duality.
Only the pure being, the pure changeless awareness (clarity, wholeness, etc.) stands alone, unaffected -- "I am taintless, immovable, completely pure, I am Shiva" as Shankara, the founder of Advaita Vedanta wrote, speaking as Shiva, the wholeness.
Yes its all about purity versus mind.
Purity is the mirror. The mind is the image in the mirror.
If modern nondualism teaching substituted the word purity for every instance they use the word awareness, they would be a lot closer to the truth.
Awareness means you are contriving mindfullness on the level of impure mind. |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Aug 08 2010 10:59:28 PM |
|
|
|
manigma
India
1065 Posts |
Posted - Aug 09 2010 : 03:04:29 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
An image viewed in a mirror, does not affect the mirror. A crystal ball placed on a red cloth is not affected by the color.
The impure mind similarly does not affect the primordial purity of That.
Do not be confused by self-inquiry of Ramana Maharishi or other modern nonduality teachings.
At one time you are saying "The primordial purity of That is unaffected from the impure mind."
And yet again you are saying "Do not be confused by self-inquiry of Ramana Maharishi or other modern nonduality teachings."
If the primordial is unaffected... then what is bothering you? 
Just enjoy your purity and let reflect other impure minds.  |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Aug 09 2010 : 5:50:24 PM
|
Hi Alwayson,
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
Awareness means you are contriving mindfullness on the level of impure mind.
Depends who you ask, I suppose.
This is just a guess, but I'm guessing you may not have experienced the primordial purity, or whatever you prefer to call it?
The reason I ask, is: those of us who have, and/or who live from/as This - know that there are very few terms that can even remotely indicate it; it is entirely without form or limits or distinctions of any kind; it is actually wholeness.
It is this that experiences all.
Just notice any thought, feeling or perception ... no matter how subtle; something experiences it; something is aware of it.
In actuality, this formless, unbound clarity has a single quality in experience.
That quality?
Awareness.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Aug 09 2010 : 6:15:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
This is just a guess, but I'm guessing you may not have experienced the primordial purity, or whatever you prefer to call it?
I try not to talk about my personal experiences with nonduality.
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
That's a sincere question, by the way; I'm genuinely interested. Do you feel you have verified Buddhism experientially to that extent? If so, how can you feel that Buddhism is so superior? (A high-level of experiential verification of non-duality usually creates open-mindedness regarding effective systems, in my experience). If you haven't experientially verified the non-dual teachings of (presumably) Madhyamaka, why are you so (seemingly) closed off to anything but Buddhism?
I just don't get it -- and am interested, if you care to discuss.
Because advaita vedanta was developed directly from Madhyamaka. Even some of the Upanishads were essentially buddhist.
Here are some exerpts from the book The Essential Vedanta by Eliot Deutsch & Rohit Dalvi 2004.
"....much of Sankara's metaphysics, especialy his analysis of the world as maya, was taken from Buddhist sources. In any event a close relationship between the Mahayana schools and Vedanta did exist with the latter borrowing some dialectical techniques, if not specific doctrines, of the former." pg. 126
"Gaudapada rather clearly draws from Buddhist philosophical sources for many of his arguments and distinctions and even for the forms and imagery in which these arguments were cast." pg. 157
Gaudapada was the guru of Sankara's guru. You can do more research on your own.
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Just notice any thought, feeling or perception ... no matter how subtle; something experiences it; something is aware of it.
In actuality, this formless, unbound clarity has a single quality in experience.
That quality?
Awareness.
Maybe. You can have unbounded clarity without having distinguished primordial purity (the mirror) from the impure mind (the image in the mirror), but that is not correct. You must distinguish the two.
Using the word awareness, you had to explain your position a lot more, than if you had used purity. |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Aug 09 2010 6:52:28 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Aug 09 2010 : 8:00:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
[quote]Originally posted by Kirtanman
Maybe. You can have unbounded clarity without having distinguished primordial purity (the mirror) from the impure mind (the image in the mirror), but that is not correct. You must distinguish the two.
Using the word awareness, you had to explain your position a lot more, than if you had used purity.
Who said anything about them not being distinguished? I've had extensive conversations about this here at the forum, including fairly recently.
Ultimately, the distinguishing is an orientation -- realizing that true nature is the aspect that is ever-free, unmoving, etc. .... with all that moves, moving within it (aka This, aka Clarity, etc.).
Shiva & Shakti - Shivashakti.
The basic model --- which emphasizes the very point you emphasized at the beginning of this thread, with the illustrations you cited --- is articulated in many traditions; Dzogchen, Kashmir Shaivism, Advaita, etc.
I just don't get what you see the issue as being; you may not like the term "awareness" for primordial clarity, but it's pretty well locked-in, I'd say, including in Dzogchen, as the English term for primordial clarity/ground of being/true nature.
I agree with your fundamental premise and emphasis -- yes -- primordial clarity must be distinguished from impure mind; without this clarity/realization, unenlightenment can (and will) continue unnecessarily.
What I'm still not seeing is why or how you see Ramana as not teaching this same thing clearly? How are his teachings on inquiry deceptive?
The reality of infinite, unbound clarity (or purity) cannot be conceived - we can only be it (and we all ever are; it's living every moment now -- unenlightenment is just a disproportionate focus on the forms of mind, and mistaking them for reality).
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4429 Posts |
Posted - Aug 10 2010 : 05:57:43 AM
|
Hi Alwayson,
quote:
An image viewed in a mirror, does not affect the mirror. A crystal ball placed on a red cloth is not affected by the color.
The impure mind similarly does not affect the primordial purity of That.
Do not be confused by self-inquiry of Ramana Maharishi or other modern nonduality teachings.
quote:
Do you know how many posts on this forum alone are about understanding self-inquiry?
To call Ramana Maharishi confusing is not a radical position
Yes, you are right. Direct self-inquiry teachings such as those offered by Ramana Maharshi can be confusing for many, and even dangerous, spinning people in circles that they may otherwise have avoided. In fact Yogani dedicated a large part of his book on Self-inquiry to just this aspect of the teaching, pointing out the dangers involved and how to avoid them.
Unfortunately, these days there are a rising number of teachers touting pure self-inquiry, without any understanding of these dangers. When a practitioner is ready, self-inquiry can be a useful practice, but only for those who are ripe. It is spiritual practice which makes the fruit ripe and ready to fall from the tree. Self inquiry is the falling from the tree.
Ultimately there is no such thing as impure mind and pure mind, for everything is seen in it's prestine purity. With self-inquiry, at first the distinction is made between what is pure and what is impure, then there is a resting in the original purity of mind to the exclusion of all else. Eventually, even that distinction is seen to be duality, and it falls away too.
Christi |
Edited by - Christi on Aug 10 2010 06:02:13 AM |
|
|
|
manigma
India
1065 Posts |
Posted - Aug 11 2010 : 01:51:44 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Eventually, even that distinction is seen to be duality, and it falls away too.
Marvelous!!
Where had you been Christi? Long time! |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4429 Posts |
Posted - Aug 11 2010 : 02:37:21 AM
|
Hi Manigma,
I've been away working. Back now for a short while. |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Aug 11 2010 : 09:19:56 AM
|
I was reading the self-enquiry entry on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-enquiry
If wikipedia is accurate, than self-inquiry is simply buddhist style analysis of I. This is found in 70% of Dalai Lama's books.
But even according to buddhism, this is not the ultimate point of view. Ultimate point of view is Dzogchen. |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Aug 11 2010 09:26:50 AM |
|
|
|
manigma
India
1065 Posts |
Posted - Aug 11 2010 : 09:42:25 AM
|
The transmission of knowledge comes from the state of rigpa that has never been stained and has never been hindered. This is Adibuddha, or 'primordial Buddha', Kunjed Gyalpo ... The state of Kunjed Gyalpo is knowledge, and in knowledge there is not even the concept of 'one and two', otherwise we have already entered into dualism. Also, the concept of 'individual' presupposes dualistic vision. But Samantabhadra is beyond all this....
... cause and effect, sentient beings and Buddhas, subjects and objects, path and goal are ultimately revealed to be of one taste: movement from one to the other is no movement at all, really, but a dynamic stillness."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen
B E A U T I F U L ! ! ! |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Aug 11 2010 : 7:29:02 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by manigma
The transmission of knowledge comes from the state of rigpa that has never been stained and has never been hindered. This is Adibuddha, or 'primordial Buddha', Kunjed Gyalpo ... The state of Kunjed Gyalpo is knowledge, and in knowledge there is not even the concept of 'one and two', otherwise we have already entered into dualism. Also, the concept of 'individual' presupposes dualistic vision. But Samantabhadra is beyond all this....
... cause and effect, sentient beings and Buddhas, subjects and objects, path and goal are ultimately revealed to be of one taste: movement from one to the other is no movement at all, really, but a dynamic stillness."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen
B E A U T I F U L ! ! !
Yes, Indeed.
True, too.
It's (the dynamic stillness, moving within our absolute true nature) called Spanda in Sanskrit, per the Yoga Spandakarika (Kashmir Shaivism yoga text).
Awareness of being clarity itself (aka awareness that is not aware of itself), and its movement, known as consciousness (awareness aware of itself, aka self-awareness) is how all this apparent diversity can be occurring within wholeness now - and is.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Aug 11 2010 : 7:44:51 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Alwayson,
quote:
An image viewed in a mirror, does not affect the mirror. A crystal ball placed on a red cloth is not affected by the color.
The impure mind similarly does not affect the primordial purity of That.
Do not be confused by self-inquiry of Ramana Maharishi or other modern nonduality teachings.
quote:
Do you know how many posts on this forum alone are about understanding self-inquiry?
To call Ramana Maharishi confusing is not a radical position
Yes, you are right. Direct self-inquiry teachings such as those offered by Ramana Maharshi can be confusing for many, and even dangerous, spinning people in circles that they may otherwise have avoided. In fact Yogani dedicated a large part of his book on Self-inquiry to just this aspect of the teaching, pointing out the dangers involved and how to avoid them.
Unfortunately, these days there are a rising number of teachers touting pure self-inquiry, without any understanding of these dangers. When a practitioner is ready, self-inquiry can be a useful practice, but only for those who are ripe. It is spiritual practice which makes the fruit ripe and ready to fall from the tree. Self inquiry is the falling from the tree.
Ultimately there is no such thing as impure mind and pure mind, for everything is seen in it's prestine purity. With self-inquiry, at first the distinction is made between what is pure and what is impure, then there is a resting in the original purity of mind to the exclusion of all else. Eventually, even that distinction is seen to be duality, and it falls away too.
Christi
Hi Christi,
Good to see you!
I find the teachings of Ramana Maharshi to be powerful, clear and effective.
I don't think Yogani was criticizing Ramana as much as certain neo-Advaitins, who say there is nothing to do, at all. I actually can't think of the last time I heard anyone say this, which may be a bit of a testament to how effective the "just do nothing" approach actually is.
And, please remember: even the Yoga Sutras and Shiva Sutras talk about high, medium and low readiness levels. Higher readiness-level practitioners can just hear the truth (we are formless awareness, ever-free of the forms occurring within our true nature), and be liberated into the fulfilled conscious that was obscured by identification with mental constructs (vikalpas).
Medium readiness-level practitioners were said to need to start with inquiry, and lower-level practitioners were said to need to start with form practices (pranayama, meditation, etc.).
In our modern societies, because we're so externalized, most of us likely will benefit most from starting with form practices, such as spinal breathing and deep meditation (try to imagine, if you care to {anyone reading}, just how much louder, faster and externalized life is now, compared to, say, the 2nd Century B.C.E, when the Yoga Sutras are said to have been written).
This doesn't mean we're at a "lower readiness level"; just more externalized, due to the dynamics of modern society.
I started there; the result is the same.
However, some can start with just hearing the truth, and some can start with just self-inquiry.
There is nothing wrong, and nothing dangerous, about either approach.
If one isn't ready, they simply won't work, is all.
Rather than "dangerous"; I would say "possibly more work than without supporting practices", would be more accurate.
I do agree with Yogani that cultivating the witness first is a much smoother and more effective approach the doing only self-inquiry, but direct self-inquiry is still a proven method for realizing enlightenment (example: Nisargadatta Maharaj).
Just a bit of an alternate view, based on my experience, for you and anyone reading.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Aug 12 2010 : 08:56:36 AM
|
| Or you use meditation and pranayama AFTER you realize nonduality to obtain rainbow body. |
|
|
|
manigma
India
1065 Posts |
Posted - Aug 12 2010 : 11:08:45 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
Or you use meditation and pranayama AFTER you realize nonduality to obtain rainbow body.
Whats the point of this realization if one still wants to obtain something?
Meditation and Pranayama become natural after realizatation.
Only deluded ones desire to obtain something.
I was told this by Master Rose in my garden.
I guess you have a different meaning for Rainbow body.
As per my knowledge, Rainbow body is the name of a process that happens a few days before (or during) the Mahaparinirvana (final extinction).
In this process all the 7 bodies of the realized one are released and Karma is totally extinguished. This process when seen by eyes is very beautiful as the emission of 7 bodies is seen in 7 colors and thus the name Rainbow body. |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Aug 12 2010 : 11:30:53 AM
|
thats not rainbow body at all
But to answer your question, the drive to obtain rainbow body comes from compassion to help infinite sentient beings.
I do know the REAL methods to achieve rainbow body. I also had a theory that the AYP star could also be used to acheive rainbow body, but that was a pet theory of mine based on some vague similarities to the real practice. |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Aug 12 2010 11:56:06 AM |
|
|
|
manigma
India
1065 Posts |
Posted - Aug 12 2010 : 2:39:13 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
But to answer your question, the drive to obtain rainbow body comes from compassion to help infinite sentient beings.
I do know the REAL methods to achieve rainbow body.
Compassion is a by-product of realization.
That is why the 7 bodies are released at Mahaparinirvana... the ultimate compassion that goes on working eternally.
I don't think there are any "methods" to achieve it.
The only method is to give up all methods. - Master Rose
Well you can't attain Rainbow Body unless you reach the 7th body... which is the Nirvanic body itself. |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Aug 12 2010 : 2:49:06 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
Or you use meditation and pranayama AFTER you realize nonduality to obtain rainbow body.
Did someone say something about rainbow body?
How do meditation and pranayama factor in to this discussion?
|
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Aug 12 2010 : 5:19:06 PM
|
You said that meditation and pranayama are for low level practitioners and for before one realizes nonduality.
I disagree with both of those statements. |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Aug 12 2010 : 5:22:45 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by manigma
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
But to answer your question, the drive to obtain rainbow body comes from compassion to help infinite sentient beings.
I do know the REAL methods to achieve rainbow body.
Compassion is a by-product of realization.
That is why the 7 bodies are released at Mahaparinirvana... the ultimate compassion that goes on working eternally.
I don't think there are any "methods" to achieve it.
The only method is to give up all methods. - Master Rose
Well you can't attain Rainbow Body unless you reach the 7th body... which is the Nirvanic body itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogch...Rainbow_Body |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Aug 12 2010 : 7:59:21 PM
|
Hi Alwayson,
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
You said that meditation and pranayama are for low level practitioners and for before one realizes nonduality.
I disagree with both of those statements.
Actually, I said:
"And, please remember: even the Yoga Sutras and Shiva Sutras talk about high, medium and low readiness levels. Higher readiness-level practitioners can just hear the truth (we are formless awareness, ever-free of the forms occurring within our true nature), and be liberated into the fulfilled conscious that was obscured by identification with mental constructs (vikalpas).
"Medium readiness-level practitioners were said to need to start with inquiry, and lower-level practitioners were said to need to start with form practices (pranayama, meditation, etc.).
In our modern societies, because we're so externalized, most of us likely will benefit most from starting with form practices, such as spinal breathing and deep meditation (try to imagine, if you care to {anyone reading}, just how much louder, faster and externalized life is now, compared to, say, the 2nd Century B.C.E, when the Yoga Sutras are said to have been written).
This doesn't mean we're at a "lower readiness level"; just more externalized, due to the dynamics of modern society.
I started there; the result is the same."
(Current emphasis added. ~KM)
I feel that the detail in the quote above covers what I meant to convey clearly, but if you don't, Alwayson, I'll be happy to try to clarify further.
In my experience, and in Kashmir Shaivism, and to an extent in AYP also, practices mirror and support one's familiarity and experience with subtle levels of consciousness, or lack thereof, and/or level of realization.
When someone thinks they're the body-mind, form practices are the best place to start; they provide the most support from the most "angles", so to speak.
As inner silence/witness consciousness is unveiled, inquiry becomes the most important practice, with form-practices continuing to provide the support they're designed to provide -- in a similar manner to how a musician or athlete (ideally) doesn't move away from the basics, just because they're ready for more advanced aspects of their area of discipline.
Finally, our true nature as the purity (your term) beyond mind, aka thought-free, non-reflective awareness is realized, and the primary practice (if it can be called that) involves a natural and ever-deepening sustaining of thought-free awareness as our natural state.
There comes a point when we actually are this clarity, and it is infinitely more real (aka real) than the non-reality of feeling that we were only the limited body-mind ever could have been dreamed.
This conditioning of being the clarity/awareness beyond mind doesn't mean thoughts don't happen; it means attachment to thoughts occurs less and less, because, experiencing that we are actually awareness (or, if you prefer, purity or clarity, beyond mind), there is no longer belief in the ego-thought, and it is seen that all such vacillations "go with the body-mind", just as respiration and digestion "go with the body-mind".
Pragmatically, body-mind is still here, of course, as a focus of certain experiences in the waking state - we just no longer confuse its fluctuations with the whole of reality, and we've realized that the wholeness of awareness (aka clarity, aka purity) is what we actually are, now - with consciousness being its "body", just as the physical body is the body for consciousness ---- true subject (purity/awareness), true cognition (consciousness), true object (body-mind/form).
"The body is the perceptible."
~Shiva Sutras
That which changes occurs within this that doesn't change.
This that doesn't change is this that we each and all actually ever are, now.
What I call "enlightenment" is the point where we are the purity/clarity (beyond mind, as you have accurately pointed out, Alwayson), and no longer mistake ourselves for occurrences (the fluctuations collectively thought of as body-mind) that are happening within this purity/clarity that we actually are now (aka wholeness, aka non-duality).
(and it doesn't really matter where the "line" is drawn, or what it's called; all that matters is: are we living unbound in the {very real} freedom beyond imagination, or does attention still attach to dream imagination?)
In wholeness, there's nothing to get, not even a rainbow body -- and no comprehension that there could be; that's why and how it's wholeness.
Wholeness is what we actually are now.
I still feel rainbow body is a euphemism for the purity/clarity/wholeness.
Even if the fantastic stories (of "only hair and fingernails remaining" and such) are true -- how are they important? Those are occurrences at the level of form -- occurring within the very mind/consciousness that you (Alwayson) have been warning us against identifying with.
I can tell you: no specific experience is needed to know ourselves as the wholeness.
That's because we actually are wholeness; even the deeply-seated idea-sense (the ego) that we're not wholeness ... happens within the wholeness we are, now.
And, by the way, I (or rather, "this body-mind") still do pranayama (spinal breathing) and deep meditation daily -- but they're not practices; practices imply "on the way" to something/somewhere (which is actually the journey without distance of unveiling what we actually are) -- and I know myself as the ultimate (purity/clarity) beyond mind, and experience this; the journey is complete; I'm home - and experience all manifestation, including this body-mind, as happening within the wholeness I am.
Yogani has said that spinal breathing and deep meditation continue for him, too; Adyashanti has said sitting in silence happens for him; Nisargadatta conducted guru puja each morning.
None of these activities imply that there's still seeking, or still something to get; the one who was seeking to get has dissolved as the dream it is; activities happen within and as aspects of the wholeness that is writing and reading these words --- there is no non-wholeness in reality.
I hope this helps clarify.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Aug 12 2010 8:08:19 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Aug 12 2010 : 8:19:03 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
An image viewed in a mirror, does not affect the mirror. A crystal ball placed on a red cloth is not affected by the color.
The impure mind similarly does not affect the primordial purity of That.
Do not be confused by self-inquiry of Ramana Maharishi or other modern nonduality teachings.
I still respectfully disagree with your basic premise in this thread --- that Ramana Maharshi and other non-duality teachings do not emphasize that our true nature is ever free from, and ever unaffected by, the fluctuations in consciousness/mind.
Ramana Maharshi most certainly emphasizes this; so did Nisargadatta Maharaj, so do modern Kashmir Shaiva teachers and groups, so do the other non-affiliated advaita teachers with whom I'm familiar -- and they all state it about as simply and clearly as it can be stated, I'd say.
I don't know why you feel this is the case (that they don't teach or emphasize this, and therefore could "confuse" people).
I do agree with your analogy, and your feeling of importance regarding the emphasis that our true nature is beyond body-mind, and that body-mind (and all form) happen within the wholeness of purity (clarity, awareness; whatever term is applied to it).
That's why liberation in this life actually is liberation in this life; we are ever free from actually being the concept called "just a human being" (or "just a universe", or "just {anything else}") - we're the source, the wholeness, and the inherent freedom thereof -- ever-liberated, and therefore ever-free to create-enjoy this beautiful living ever-freshly happening within.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
PS- If your objection is all about the word "Awareness" (Ramana tended to use the term Self, primarily, just fyi, rather than "awareness"), I'm guessing you'll find that's kind of a lost cause. In a similar manner to the word "enlightenment" ... it may not be the best term, but it's the main one used by most people, in most systems, and will likely continue to be, I'm guessing.
|
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4429 Posts |
Posted - Aug 12 2010 : 9:15:39 PM
|
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
Hi Christi,
Good to see you!
I find the teachings of Ramana Maharshi to be powerful, clear and effective.
I don't think Yogani was criticizing Ramana as much as certain neo-Advaitins, who say there is nothing to do, at all. I actually can't think of the last time I heard anyone say this, which may be a bit of a testament to how effective the "just do nothing" approach actually is.
Have you read Yogani's book on Self-inquiry? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Fundamental Point of Nonduality
